|
|
|
Maverick
Skeptic Friend
Sweden
385 Posts |
 Posted - 01/24/2010 : 13:20:11 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by cantbe323
Geologists claim they know what causes earthquakes but can't prove it
Meteorologists claim they can accurately record the average world temperature but they can't prove it.
Astrophysics claim there's black holes, expanding universe, and a big bang, but they can,t prove it.
It seems that just the word of a recognized scientists is all that's needed to be believed.
cantbe323
|
Does that mean you don't think there is any evidence for any scientific theories? |
"Life is but a momentary glimpse of the wonder of this astonishing universe, and it is sad to see so many dreaming it away on spiritual fantasy." -- Carl Sagan |
 |
|
|
cantbe323
Suspended
242 Posts |
Posted - 01/24/2010 : 17:08:31 [Permalink]
|
[quote]Originally posted by dglas
Well, lessee.
We can use theories that have the potential to be proven or disproven, because they actually refer to, and are therefore contingent on, something.>>
Earthquakes are not a theory, what causes them is. And since pinning down the cause would be physically impossible, we'll never know it.
<<Or we can use ideas that can never be proven or disproven because they don't refer to anything and are therefore not contingent on anything.>>
See above...
Your call, I suppose, but science grows while non-science stagnates. Are you on the road or left in the dust.>>
I'm only a concerned capable observer with no axe to grind, so it doesn't apply.
cantbe323
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/24/2010 : 19:38:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by cantbe323
I'm only a concerned capable observer... |
Only if your brain is 100% reliable. Otherwise, anything you observe might be false. Since we know you've made at least one mistake, your capability is in serious doubt.
Do you have any proof of what you did last Wednesday? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
cantbe323
Suspended
242 Posts |
Posted - 01/25/2010 : 13:47:54 [Permalink]
|
So he's forced to fall back on a cowardly selective contrarianism so he can feel smug and superior to random strangers on a small Internet forum.>>
Wrong... I present wrongs I'm familiar with and hope that other skeptics find them wrong too. That's what we are, isn't it, skeptics working for skeptic causes, not gotcha bickerers who look for each other's weaknessess.
cantbe323
|
|
|
|
cantbe323
Suspended
242 Posts |
Posted - 01/25/2010 : 14:29:54 [Permalink]
|
I'm only a concerned capable observer... cantbe323 >>
Only if your brain is 100% reliable. Otherwise, anything you observe might be false. >>
possibly, but the issue is the wrongs I observe, not defending my observations.
Since we know you've made at least one mistake, your capability is in serious doubt. >>
I go where no man has gone before and all you can do is question my credibility and capability!! Where's your curiousity? Don't you want to explore new things? This is a skeptic forum dedicated to exposing established wrongs, isn't it, or am I in a gossip forum?
Do you have any proof of what you did last Wednesday? >>
Ridiculous. I can't even prove what I was doing ten minutes ago, but knowing your picky nature, you'd even doubt a movie of me doing it.
cantbe323
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 01/25/2010 : 16:37:30 [Permalink]
|
The thought occurs; cantbe doesn't know how to use the term "Theory." Like many laymen, he thinks it's a wild guess all gussied up with big words & bullshit, as is obvious from his statements.
The term theory has two broad sets of meanings, one used in the empirical sciences (both natural and social) and the other used in philosophy, mathematics, logic, and across other fields in the humanities. There is considerable difference and even dispute across academic disciplines as to the proper usages of the term. What follows is an attempt to describe how the term is used, not to try to say how it ought to be used.
Although the scientific meaning is by far the more commonly used in academic discourse, it is hardly the only one used, and it would be a mistake to assume from the outset that a given use of the term "theory" in academic literature or discourse is a reference to a scientific or empirically-based theory.
Even so, since the use of the term theory in scientific or empirical inquiry is the more common one, it will be discussed first. (Other usages follow in the section labeled "Theories formally and generally.")
A theory, in the scientific sense of the word, is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of empirical observations. A scientific theory does two things:
it identifies this set of distinct observations as a class of phenomena, and
makes assertions about the underlying reality that brings about or affects this class.
In the scientific or empirical tradition, the term "theory" is reserved for ideas which meet baseline requirements about the kinds of empirical observations made, the methods of classification used, and the consistency of the theory in its application among members of the class to which it pertains. These requirements vary across different scientific fields of knowledge, but in general theories are expected to be functional and parsimonious: i.e. a theory should be the simplest possible tool that can be used to effectively address the given class of phenomena.
Theories are distinct from theorems: theorems are derived deductively from theories according to a formal system of rules, generally as a first step in testing or applying the theory in a concrete situation. Theories are abstract and conceptual, and to this end they are never considered right or wrong. Instead, they are supported or challenged by observations in the world. They are 'rigorously tentative', meaning that they are proposed as true but expected to satisfy careful examination to account for the possibility of faulty inference or incorrect observation. Sometimes theories are falsified, meaning that an explicit set of observations contradicts some fundamental assumption of the theory, but more often theories are revised to conform to new observations, by restricting the class of phenomena the theory applies to or changing the assertions made. Sometimes a theory is set aside by scholars because there is no way to examine its assertions analytically; these may continue on in the popular imagination until some means of examination is found which either refutes or lends credence to the theory.
The word 'theory' is generally considered to derive from Greek #952;#949;#969;#961;#943;#945; theoria (Jerome), Greek "contemplation, speculation", from #952;#949;#969;#961;#972;#962; "spectator", #952;#941;#945; thea "a view" + #8001;#961;#8118;#957; horan "to see", literally "looking at a show".[1] A second possible etymology traces the word back to #964;#959; #952;#949;#943;#959;#957; to theion "divine things" instead of thea, reflecting the concept of contemplating the divine organisation (Cosmos) of the nature. The word has been in use in English since at least the late 16th century.[2]
|
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 01/25/2010 : 17:27:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by cantbe323
Wrong... I present wrongs I'm familiar with and hope that other skeptics find them wrong too.
|
Wrong. All you have done is make assertion based solely on your opinion.
Originally posted by cantbe323
That's what we are, isn't it, skeptics working for skeptic causes, not gotcha bickerers who look for each other's weaknessess.
|
No it is enirely possible for a skeptic to be wrong. It's a poor skeptic who is incapable or unwilling to support their assertions and learn from their mistake. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
| Edited by - moakley on 01/25/2010 17:48:20 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/25/2010 : 17:44:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by cantbe323
Wrong... I present wrongs I'm familiar with... |
But you haven't done so. You've just poo-pooed all of science. Demonstrating that science is wrong would entail presenting actual empirical evidence that the conclusions of science are invalid, based upon its own methodological foundations, not your own version.| ...and hope that other skeptics find them wrong too. |
There's no need for hope. If you had the goods, others would agree with you. But until you present something more compelling than "science sucks," very few will agree with you.| That's what we are, isn't it, skeptics working for skeptic causes, not gotcha bickerers who look for each other's weaknessess. |
No, we're skeptical that the "wrongs" you think you've presented are wrong. Or are we supposed to be selectively skeptical, and not be skeptical of the claims of others who call themselves skeptics?
You also wrote:| possibly, but the issue is the wrongs I observe, not defending my observations. |
Then yes, you are asking us to be selectively skeptical. Tough luck for you.| I go where no man has gone before... |
This is the arrogance of ignorance shining brightly. The very idea that you're somehow the first to do what you're doing here is extraordinarily blinkered. We can pigeonhole your behavior ("contrarian") because there have been many, many people just like you. You're not unique. You're not a trend-setter. You're following a well-worn path where millions have gone before, none of whom made any significant advances to our knowledge of the world or of ourselves.| ...and all you can do is question my credibility and capability!! |
It's all that you've provided for us to examine. The rest of your claims are absent anything testable.| Where's your curiousity? Don't you want to explore new things? |
Absolutely! Why don't you present something new?| This is a skeptic forum dedicated to exposing established wrongs, isn't it, or am I in a gossip forum? |
Our mission statement is at the bottom of every page, but I'll repeat it for you here:The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise Do you have any proof of what you did last Wednesday? >>
Ridiculous. I can't even prove what I was doing ten minutes ago, but knowing your picky nature, you'd even doubt a movie of me doing it. |
Wow, you really don't get it, do you? According to your various statements about what "true science" is, a movie would be unacceptable evidence. I would generally accept a movie, because I reject your ideas.
In other words, given what you've said, you should reject all claims about what may or may not have happened 10 minutes ago. But you don't, because you refuse to apply the standards you set for other claims to yourself and your claims. As I said above, we're not here for such selective skepticism.
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Fripp
SFN Regular
USA
727 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2010 : 13:27:15 [Permalink]
|
I go where no man has gone before
|
Sooooo... out of the 5+ billion people alive today and the trillions of people who have walked this earth, you (and you alone) are the only person who has questioned whatever it is you are questioning?
Sorry, but as Dave pointed out, there have been tons of your kind who are contrarians for the mere sake of being contrarian, and they have all had the same M.O. as you: hand-waving, unsupported claims, wild and unverifiable theories, and anger at anyone here who dares question their credentials. |
"What the hell is an Aluminum Falcon?"
"Oh, I'm sorry. I thought my Dark Lord of the Sith could protect a small thermal exhaust port that's only 2-meters wide! That thing wasn't even fully paid off yet! You have any idea what this is going to do to my credit?!?!"
"What? Oh, oh, 'just rebuild it'? Oh, real [bleep]ing original. And who's gonna give me a loan, jackhole? You? You got an ATM on that torso LiteBrite?" |
|
|
|
cantbe323
Suspended
242 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2010 : 15:31:37 [Permalink]
|
Sorry, but as Dave pointed out, there have been tons of your kind who are contrarians for the mere sake of being contrarian, >>
True skeptics ARE contrarians. Jeeze! Don't you know the rules of your own game. Leaves me with the question of just how many contrarian skeptics you systematically drove out of this forum over the years because they just didn't fit in with your tight little clique.
You are persistant, I'll give you that.
Just how many of your gotchas did it to take to get rid of your tons of contrarian skeptics?
cantbe323 |
|
|
|
Fripp
SFN Regular
USA
727 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2010 : 15:44:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by cantbe323
Leaves me with the question of just how many contrarian skeptics you systematically drove out of this forum over the years because they just didn't fit in with your tight little clique.
Just how many of your gotchas did it to take to get rid of your tons of contrarian skeptics?
cantbe323
|
You conveniently ignored this question (among many):
Out of the 5+ billion people alive today and the trillions of people who have walked this earth, you (and you alone) are the only person who has questioned whatever it is you are questioning?
I've driven no one away. I am far from the best debater on these boards.
Please illustrate where I set up a "gotcha"? If you are who you say you are, you should be "gotcha"-proof.
Why should questions about one's expertise drive a person away, unless of course that person had none.
There's no clique here, and if there was one, I certainly wouldn't be in it. I don't post here all that much.
|
"What the hell is an Aluminum Falcon?"
"Oh, I'm sorry. I thought my Dark Lord of the Sith could protect a small thermal exhaust port that's only 2-meters wide! That thing wasn't even fully paid off yet! You have any idea what this is going to do to my credit?!?!"
"What? Oh, oh, 'just rebuild it'? Oh, real [bleep]ing original. And who's gonna give me a loan, jackhole? You? You got an ATM on that torso LiteBrite?" |
|
|
|
cantbe323
Suspended
242 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2010 : 15:52:18 [Permalink]
|
Sooooo... out of the 5+ billion people alive today and the trillions of people who have walked this earth, you (and you alone) are the only person who has questioned whatever it is you are questioning? >>
That's about it. Most of the things I know by exposure, experience, observation and assimilation aren't found in books or scientific papers.
cantbe323 |
|
|
|
Fripp
SFN Regular
USA
727 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2010 : 15:56:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by cantbe323
Sooooo... out of the 5+ billion people alive today and the trillions of people who have walked this earth, you (and you alone) are the only person who has questioned whatever it is you are questioning? >>
That's about it. Most of the things I know by exposure, experience, observation and assimilation aren't found in books or scientific papers.
cantbe323
|
And you don't find that a tad far-fetched? And you would expect a site of skeptics to take that claim at face value?
We're waiting for evidence of your expertise.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
You would ask nothing less of others, so why should you be exempt? |
"What the hell is an Aluminum Falcon?"
"Oh, I'm sorry. I thought my Dark Lord of the Sith could protect a small thermal exhaust port that's only 2-meters wide! That thing wasn't even fully paid off yet! You have any idea what this is going to do to my credit?!?!"
"What? Oh, oh, 'just rebuild it'? Oh, real [bleep]ing original. And who's gonna give me a loan, jackhole? You? You got an ATM on that torso LiteBrite?" |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2010 : 15:59:58 [Permalink]
|
 |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
cantbe323
Suspended
242 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2010 : 16:24:14 [Permalink]
|
We're waiting for evidence of your expertise. >>
There is no evidence of my expertise, only me, my experience, my common sense, my unfettered powers of observation and deduction, and my vision.
<<Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.>>
Yeah, and extraordinary gotchas require extraordinary armor.
<<You would ask nothing less of others, so why should you be exempt?>>
Wrong... I only observe and find wrongs, hope someone can see the same wrongs and debate it with me. So far the only feedback I've gotten back is more gotchas, very little constructive dialog.
cantbe323 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Scientist's questionable truthes
